Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

WATCH: The Big Bang never happened?

February 10, 2015
Staff

WRITER

Here's something you're not seeing reported in the news: the Big Bang may not have ever happened. New research posits that the universe may have existed forever, noting that general relativity can only explain what happened after the Big Bang, not during or before.

Get all the details HERE and scroll down for analysis from Glenn.

GLENN: Oh.

PAT: The science is settled. It's absolutely settled.

GLENN: This should be gigantic news. New quantum studies have shown that there is no such thing as the Big Bang.

STU: Yeah, it didn't happen. Why are you such a big science denier and think this didn't happen.

PAT: Because yesterday you were asking, why are you denying there was a Big Bang. But now you're asking, why are we denying that there wasn't and saying that there was. Yeah, the science is in. It's conclusive.

STU: We know the universe has existed forever. It's eternal.

GLENN: Is that a quote?

STU: The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.

PAT: It's the only way they could resolve the math. They could not get the math right.

GLENN: Because everything breaks down the closer you get to the Big Bang.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: So all physics breaks down.

PAT: Yes. And it certainly breaks down during and prior to the Big Bang because they don't have any clue as to what was before it, how it happened, how this matter formed, what caused it to expand, they don't know any of that.

STU: Right. This brings up the question as to what exactly caused this to exist, if it's been there forever. What came before it?

PAT: Right.

STU: And as always, there's no answer to that.

PAT: Right.

STU: At least the Big Bang --

PAT: But they know everything, but shut up and believe everything they say every day about climate change and everything else because they always know, until they don't. Then now they do.

GLENN: This is huge news! The Big Bang has been discredited?

STU: I mean, maybe some of those are holding on to the antiquated ideas of the Big Bang. But this is a legitimate study.

PAT: Legitimate stuff. It's really fascinating to read the article. It almost sounds like a Sunday school class.

GLENN: Yeah, "the universe is eternal."

PAT: Yeah. It's interesting.

STU: And how many times have we heard the Big Bang -- like, you're a complete idiot if you don't believe exactly in the Big Bang as described.

Listen to this quote: The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there. As Glenn was just describing, they knew the whole time that it couldn't have possibly happened the way they were describing it, but you still were an idiot for not believing it their way.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: That's unbelievable.

PAT: Yes. Yes. So they picked this arbitrary. It's not arbitrary. I mean, they used mathematics to figure it out. But they believed it was 13.8 billion years ago that the Big Bang happened. And now, not so much. It's always been here.

[laughter]

Oh, wait. Well -- what happened to create it then? Who did that?

GLENN: You know, you are such a science denier.

PAT: I know. I know. I know.

GLENN: You want to talk about flat earther. Here's the guy who thinks the universe is 13.6 billion years old?

PAT: .8.

GLENN: It's been here forever.

PAT: That's what they'll start saying to the Big Bang theorists. That's what they'll say to them now.

GLENN: No. They won't say that. They won't say that. I think the exact opposite is happening. I think the Big Bang, they will not let go of.

STU: I think you're right.

GLENN: The Big Bang stays.

STU: They'll keep it around for a while.

PAT: Because they have no other explanation for anything. They have to have it.

GLENN: And the Big Bang has been so good at discrediting an eternal being.

PAT: Right.

STU: Like dinosaurs left the earth for a myriad of reasons until they all decided to leave the earth because of meteors that left the earth. I remember seeing that on the cover of TIME Magazine. And it was in the '80s where that's where that came to be. We all realize that, okay, now the accepted thing is that they left because of meteors. But that was never the -- before that, that was not the truth. But scientists were always right in that entire process. They were right until they changed their mind. And they were right again. And only they knew they were wrong before. But they're not wrong then. They're only wrong then now obviously.

PAT: Don't make me go all Piltdown Man on you.

STU: Are you going to do it?

GLENN: Do it. Do it. Do it.

PAT: I might do it.

Okay. For 40 years, for 40 years, scientists believed they had found the missing link. The evolutionary missing link. And they found this skull. And they named him Piltdown Man. And Piltdown Man was the link between primordial man and humans.

Okay. So whatever ape-like creature that we were, this is the link, and then there was us. And for 40 years in the early 20th century, they believed this.

And then in the 1940s, '42, 43-ish, in there somewhere, someone came around and said, this skull is part plastic. I don't think this is actual human bonage here. It seems to be plastic. And they're like, okay, yeah, that wasn't the missing link. Forty years scientists believed that.

GLENN: That can't be true because plastics were new in the 1920s. So either your time is off --

PAT: The timing may be off.

GLENN: Yeah. It is.

PAT: It might be. But it was 40 years, and it was partially plastic. It was partially man-made. Perhaps it was some other sort of polymer.

GLENN: I hate to be a Piltdown Man denier.

PAT: Piltdown Man -- turns out to be a hoax.

STU: It definitely was a hoax.

PAT: It was a hoax.

STU: This is on the Pat Gray best of.

PAT: Oh, yeah. This is on the rotating list.

STU: One of his biggest hits. A lot of times this is the encore at the concert for Pat.

GLENN: He's like, good night, everybody. And they're like, Piltdown! Piltdown! Piltdown! Piltdown!

[laughter]

Okay. I think it was the 1940s.

PAT: For 40 years!

[laughter]

It's like, a long, long time ago.

[laughter]

GLENN: All right. I can't believe he didn't start with Piltdown.

PAT: I will find out exactly what it was made of. Skull fragments. Jaw bone. I'm not seeing what it's made of yet, but I will. I will.

GLENN: Interesting. Interesting.

PAT: I will.

GLENN: And this is the same guy just a few minutes ago said the universe was 13.8 billion years old.

STU: Sucker. This guy will fall for anything that we all believed for decades.

GLENN: What a dope this guy is.

PAT: How long has the Big Bang theory existed? It's been pretty long.

STU: It's been number one for several years.

GLENN: Didn't Hawking have something to do with that? Because Hawking was the one who kind of tried to roll the universe back. Right?

Does anybody know?

PAT: I'm not sure. I don't know.

STU: I don't know the answer to that.

GLENN: I think he was the one who said, let's roll it back. It's expanding. Let's roll it back.

PAT: It's part of the general relativity of Einstein's theory. So he may have started it. And Hawking may have tweaked it. I don't know.

STU: Yeah, because you had the period of 380,000 years of an afterglow light pattern. Then the dark ages. Then the first stars were about 400 million years in. Then the development of galaxies and planets. Dark energy accelerated expansion to today. Of course, that's -- I should say, that's what we believed last week. Now we know it's stupid.

PAT: Completely nonsense.

STU: That was -- it's idiotic now. We can all look back to those times last week when we believed there was a Big Bang.

GLENN: This is such big news. It should be on the front page of everything. The Big Bang isn't right.

[laughter]

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?  

Should Starbase become its own city?  

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Top FIVE takeaways from Glenn's EXCLUSIVE interview with Trump

Image courtesy of the White House

As President Trump approaches his 100th day in office, Glenn Beck joined him to evaluate his administration’s progress with a gripping new interview. April 30th is President Trump's 100th day in office, and what an eventful few months it has been. To commemorate this milestone, Glenn Beck was invited to the White House for an exclusive interview with the President.

Their conversation covered critical topics, including the border crisis, DOGE updates, the revival of the U.S. energy sector, AI advancements, and more. Trump remains energized, acutely aware of the nation’s challenges, and determined to address them.

Here are the top five takeaways from Glenn Beck’s one-on-one with President Trump:

Border Security and Cartels

DAVID SWANSON / Contributor | Getty Images

Early in the interview, Glenn asked if Trump views Mexico as a failed narco-state. While Trump avoided the term, he acknowledged that cartels effectively control Mexico. He noted that while not all Mexican officials are corrupt, those who are honest fear severe repercussions for opposing the cartels.

Trump was unsurprised when Glenn cited evidence that cartels are using Pentagon-supplied weapons intended for the Mexican military. He is also aware of the fentanyl influx from China through Mexico and is committed to stopping the torrent of the dangerous narcotic. Trump revealed that he has offered military aid to Mexico to combat the cartels, but these offers have been repeatedly declined. While significant progress has been made in securing the border, Trump emphasized that more must be done.

American Energy Revival

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s tariffs are driving jobs back to America, with the AI sector showing immense growth potential. He explained that future AI systems require massive, costly complexes with significant electricity demands. China is outpacing the U.S. in building power plants to support AI development, threatening America’s technological leadership.

To counter this, Trump is cutting bureaucratic red tape, allowing AI companies to construct their own power plants, potentially including nuclear facilities, to meet the energy needs of AI server farms. Glenn was thrilled to learn these plants could also serve as utilities, supplying excess power to homes and businesses. Trump is determined to ensure America remains the global leader in AI and energy.

Liberation Day Shakeup

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Glenn drew a parallel between Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs and the historical post-World War II Liberation Day. Trump confirmed the analogy, explaining that his policy aims to dismantle an outdated global economic order established to rebuild Europe and Asia after the wars of the 20th century. While beneficial decades ago, this system now disadvantages the U.S. through job outsourcing, unfair trade deals, and disproportionate NATO contributions.

Trump stressed that America’s economic survival is at stake. Without swift action, the U.S. risks collapse, potentially dragging the West down with it. He views his presidency as a critical opportunity to reverse this decline.

Trouble in Europe

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

When Glenn pressed Trump on his tariff strategy and negotiations with Europe, Trump delivered a powerful statement: “I don’t have to negotiate.” Despite America’s challenges, it remains the world’s leading economy with the wealthiest consumer base, making it an indispensable trading partner for Europe. Trump wants to make equitable deals and is willing to negotiate with European leaders out of respect and desire for shared prosperity, he knows that they are dependent on U.S. dollars to keep the lights on.

Trump makes an analogy, comparing America to a big store. If Europe wants to shop at the store, they are going to have to pay an honest price. Or go home empty-handed.

Need for Peace

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

Trump emphasized the need to end America’s involvement in endless wars, which have cost countless lives and billions of dollars without a clear purpose. He highlighted the staggering losses in Ukraine, where thousands of soldiers die weekly. Trump is committed to ending the conflict but noted that Ukrainian President Zelenskyy has been a challenging partner, constantly demanding more U.S. support.

The ongoing wars in Europe and the Middle East are unsustainable, and America’s excessive involvement has prolonged these conflicts, leading to further casualties. Trump aims to extricate the U.S. from these entanglements.